Impact of Policy on Learning and Inclusion in the New Learning and Skills Sector

How is policy translated into practice?

A framework for analysingpolicy-practice interactions in the learning and skills sector

Richard Steer

Ken Spours

Ann Hodgson

Institute of Education,

University of London

Paper presented at BERA Annual Conference

London, 5-8 September 2007 Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007

This is work in progress. Please do not cite without written permission from the lead author (email: ).

Abstract

This paper outlines the major concepts that have been employed within the TLRP research project ‘The Impact of Policy on Learning and Inclusion in the New Learning and Skills Sector’ (LSS).[1] We argue for a conceptual framework that has three main elements: firstly, it is rooted in an analysis of the wider governance context, which recognises the important role played by policy levers in an era of arms-length regulation; secondly, understanding the impact of policy requires a consideration of multiple perspectives at different levels within complex systems; thirdly, this gives rise to the related notions that (i) policy intentions are actively ‘translated’ by actors at different system levels and (ii) that these processes and their effects are ‘mediated’ by a wide range of other factors at the local, institutional and sub-institutional (e.g. faculty, course or classroom) levels. Looking at the relationships between policy and practice in this way highlights the need to take greater account of the role of what we have termed ‘local ecologies’, a concept that helps to conceptualise the interaction of complex sets of factors within a local environment. In conclusion we consider some of the issues raised by our approach to policy analysis.

INTRODUCTION

How can we make sense of contemporary educational policy making? How might we understand the impact that policies have on learners, on teaching staff and on educational institutions? How is policy transformed from a manifesto commitment or a Ministerial statement into changed teaching practices in classrooms and other sites of formal learning? And how do we explain the unintended and occasionally perverse outcomes that can result from well-intentioned policies and initiatives? These were some of the key questions which we had to address during the course of our ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme project ‘The Impact of Policy on Learning and Inclusion in the New Learning and Skills Sector’ (LSS). The project ran from January 2004 to July 2007 and its central aim was to examine the impact of policy on teaching, learning and assessment, and also on inclusion, for three groups of learners in the English post-compulsory education and training sector: young people on vocational courses at Levels 1 and 2 in colleges of further education (FE); adults who were improving their basic literacy and numeracy skills in adult community learning (ACL) centres; and employees in work-based learning (WBL) who were engaged in learning to improve their basic skills. We chose to focus on these groups of learners in particular because they are among the more disadvantaged groups served by the immensely diverse sector that is the LSS and, as such, represent key target groups for the policy makers who were charged by David Blunkett in 2000 with realising the vision ‘of a learning society in which everyone has the opportunity to go as far as their talents and efforts will take them’ (DfEE, 2000: 1).

The LSS in England offers a very particular case for an examination of the impact of policy. It covers all post-16 learning and training outside higher education and serving some 6 million learners, is arguably the most diverse sector within the English education and training system -16 to 19 year olds in schools and colleges, young people on apprenticeships, work-based learning initiatives, adult basic skills in the community, leisure learning and prison education all fall within the sector. There is no such thing as a typical learner, or even a typical provider, within the LSS. It is also a relatively young sector, having been established by the Learning and Skills Act in 2000.[2] Since the formation of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in 2001, the LSS has benefited from significant increases in investment[3], making it less true than it once was to describe it as the ‘Cinderella sector’ of education. However, even though funding disparities have narrowed, the sector is largely ignored by the media and, in political terms, its fate is far less important than what happens in schools and universities. A low public profile appears to encourage political experimentation, thus, the LSS has been more susceptible to radical policy changes such as those that have followed in the wake of the Leitch Review of Skills (Leitch, 2006) – principally the move towards a new system of funding which will see publicly funded, adult vocational skills,apart from community learning and programmes for those with learning difficulties anddisabilities, increasingly channelled through ‘demand-led’ routes[4] (DIUS, 2007). It is important to remember too that, seen within the wider European or even just the UK context, the Government stands apart in the extent to which it has applied market mechanisms in the education and training system as a whole in England.

Notwithstanding these significant differences there are also important parallels between the LSS and other areas of education, as well as connections with wider public sector policy. Increased funding for the sector has been accompanied by closer government attention – as witnessed by the Further Education and Training Bill (HMG, 2006) – and a constant stream of major reorganisations, new initiatives and shifting priorities has forced professionals to become adept at coping with constant change (Edward et al., 2007). This is one aspect in which the experience of those working in the LSS is very similar to that of school teachers (Moss, forthcoming). Moreover, many of the recent developments in the LSS closely mirror the UK Government’s priorities for reform across all of the public services (PMSU, 2006, 2007): in short, a move away from reliance on top-down performance management (through the use of targets, performance measures and audit), to a model of reform that is also driven by greater competition, user voice and measures to improve the capability and capacity of public services (see Coffield, Steer,et al., forthcoming, for a critique). For these reasons, the ways in which policy plays out in the LSS may resonate with experiences elsewhere in education and in other parts of the public sector.

A GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE: POLICY STEERING IN THE ERA OF ARMS-LENGTH REGULATION

There are many ways of approaching policy analysis, each offering different definitions of ‘policy’ and drawing on different theoretical traditions and/or methodological approaches (Raab, 1994;Taylor et al.,1997). These include rational, organisational, political, symbolic and normative perspectives (Malen and Knapp, 1997). Policy can also be considered as text and as discourse (Ball, 1993), as both a product and as a process (Taylor et al., 1997). Hamilton and Hillier (2006) offer a three-fold typology of approaches to policy analysis:

(1)Rational approaches adopt a neat, linear view of policy as rational problem-solving, taking at face value the official accounts of policy-makers;

(2)Approaches which take account of complexity reject the essentially top-down view of policy represented by rational approaches, arguing instead that ‘the beliefs, values and activities of the whole range of actors in the policy-making process are important to its outcome’ (ibid.:33); and

(3)Critical policy analysis draws on post-structuralist theorists to analyse the ways in which certain ‘discourses’ are privileged over others, leading to the framing of policy problems in particular ways that shape how people see the world and their possibilities for action within it.

Our approach to analysing policy draws on all three but particularly upon elements of the second and third of these types and is akin to what has been termed by Raab (1994)a ‘governance approach’. We have been particularly influenced by the work of Janet Newman, for whom ‘Governance is an analytical concept, giving rise to questions about what forms of power and authority, patterns of relationships and rights and obligations might typify a particular approach to governing’ (2001:11). The governance perspective on policy has emerged in response to fundamental changes in the relationships between the state, economy and civil society:

Governance has become a shorthand term to describe a particular set of changes. It signifies a set of elusive but potentially deeply significant shifts in the way in which government seeks to govern… It denotes the development of ways of coordinating economic activity that transcend the limitations of both hierarchy and markets… It highlights the role of the state in ‘steering’ action within complex social systems… It denotes the reshaping of the role of local government away from service delivery towards ‘community governance’… (Newman, 2001:11 – original emphasis)

An important feature of the governance perspective is that it does not take these changes for granted, but seeks to examine the dynamics within them. It is recognised that different political narratives and institutional practices overlap, giving rise to ‘tensions and disjunctures’ (ibid.:26). In our analysis of the impact of policy in the LSS we have focussed in particular on the role of the state in steering action within complex systems, and it is to this important aspect of governance that we now turn.

The rise of policy steering

The term policy steering refers to the processes whereby national governments have withdrawn from direct control over the administration of public services, increasingly using a range of different ‘levers’ to steer policy in a system of arms-length regulation. This development is associated with the decline of the administrative Keynesian state and the emergence of new forms of governance based upon neo-liberal principles (Newman, 2000;Ainley, 2004). During the 1980s and early 1990s, under successive Conservative governments, public services and the relationship between government and citizens in the UK were transformed by what has been termed the ‘New Public Management’. Primacy was given to economic norms and values in the public services (Christiansen and Lægreid, 2002). Public management was transformed through ‘restructuring of the public sector, particularly through privatisation; restructuring and slimming down central civil services; introducing competition, especially through internal markets and contracting public services to the private sector; [and] improving efficiency, especially through performance auditing and measurement’ (Minogue, 1998:18). Thus, ‘citizens and clients were recast as consumers, and public service organisations were recast in the image of the business world’ (Newman, 2000:45).

The election of the New Labour government in 1997 brought a new model of governance associated with the discourse of modernisation (Newman, 2000). In important respects the modernisation agenda continued the New Public Management project of transforming the public sector through the use of market mechanisms and the promotion of a consumer ethos, attacking monopoly forms of provision and increasing accountability to service users and other ‘stakeholders’. There was also continuity in the ‘focus on the containment of welfare expenditure, on organisational efficiency and performance, and on the search for business solutions to social and policy problems’ (ibid.:46). What makes modernisation distinct from New Public Management is that it is linked to social democratic attempts to construct a ‘third way’ in politics (Giddens, 1998), embracing the neo-liberal values of markets and competition whilst advocating a key role for government in promoting social inclusion. This hybrid regime, fusing social democratic aims with the continued use of neo-liberal mechanisms for achieving change (with the latter comprising the dominant strand of the discourse), is what Hall (2003) terms New Labour’s ‘double shuffle’.

The rise of policy steering can also be seen as a response to the displacement of the old certainties of twentieth century industrial society by a more ‘reflexive modernisation’ (Beck, 1994) in which there is a growing awareness of the limitations of the state’s capacity to solve complex social problems on its own:

No single agency, public or private, has all the knowledge and information required to solve complex problems in a dynamic and diverse society, and no single actor has the power to control events in a complex and diverse field of actions and interactions. Rather than government acting alone it is increasingly engaging in co-regulation, co-steering, co-production, cooperative management, public/private partnerships and other forms of governing that cross the boundaries between government and society and between the public and private sectors.

(Newman, 2001:15).

As its operational functions have steadily been ‘contracted out’ to various Non-Departmental Public Bodies and public-private partnerships (Ainley, 2004; Steinberg and Johnson, 2004), the role of government has shifted to that of ‘a regulator of services, setter of standards and guarantor of quality’ (Newman, 2001:83). National policy is, therefore, increasingly channelled through intermediary agencies and is steered at arms-length through the use of a range of levers or ‘governing instruments’ (Kooiman, 2003). These include performance targets, standards, audit, inspection and quality assurance processes, backed up by powers to intervene where public services are ‘failing’.

Looking at the role and impact of policy levers is not sufficient for understanding policy in the LSS, however. The selection and use of certain levers to steer policy needs to be analysed in the context of the dominant policy drivers and policy narratives. Policy drivers are the overarching policy priorities which set the direction of policy. In the case of the LSS, the twin drivers of policy have consistently been skills and social justice - with the latter seen as dependent upon the development of skills for economic competitiveness (Hodgson et al., 2007a). The choices about whether and how different policy levers are used are bound up with the dominant policy drivers. Decisions about how policy is to be steered are therefore inherently political, although the actual operation of policy levers may be designed to be more or less politicised (Raffe and Spours, 2007).

While policy drivers are about overall policy aims, policy narratives both legitimate the drivers and specify the means by which they will be achieved. These policy narratives therefore provide the tone of policy and may be focussed around major commissions, inquiries or policy documents – recent examples within the LSS would include Tomlinson on 14-19, Foster on the future role of Further Education and Leitch on skills. Policy narratives can also be used to secure ideological consistency in policy making across government departments, for example the promotion by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (2006) of a model of public service reform. In Kooiman’s (2003) terms, we need to look not only at governing instrumentation, but also at governing images (e.g. at the way key concepts such as ‘education’, ‘learning’ and ‘skills’ are represented) and then at governing actions (that is, at the operational measures that are put into place in response to policy instruments, e.g. looking at the impact of national standards, curricular developments, teaching materials, tests, etc.).

Policy steering in the LSS

In our study of the LSS we chose to focus in detail on the role played by five policy levers which appeared to us, at the outset of the research, as being the most prominent mechanisms through which policy in the sector was being steered. These were:

Funding – This involved looking not only at the overall levels of funding being allocated to the sector (i.e. the sufficiency of the resources for what providers were being asked to deliver), but also at: the distribution of funding within the LSS; the prioritisation of funding for certain groups of learners and types of provision; the mechanisms through which funding is allocated or earned; funding inequalities, both within the sector and also between the LSS, schools and HE; the balance of contributions to the costs of learning made by the state, employers and individuals; and the connections between funding, planning and targets.

Targets – As in other areas of education and in many other public services, targets have been used as a major steering mechanism within the LSS. While target setting occurs at all levels of the sector, the influence of the Treasury’s Public Service Agreement targets has been particularly pronounced. We looked at whether such high profile targets have been met (the LSS has in fact been highly successful in meeting the targets that government has set for it), but also focussed on the processes of target-setting, the degree to which targets were owned by the profession or imposed upon it, and the positive and negative effects that targets can have on teaching, learning and inclusion.

Planning – By planning we mean the formal mechanisms through which provision within the LSS is organised, the processes for identifying what provision should be offered and the balance between institutional collaboration and competition. Planning functions exist at the national level, in different spatial areas beneath the national level (e.g. regionally, sub-regionally and within local authority areas), within employment sectors (e.g. through the Sector Skills Councils) and also at the institutional level.

Inspection– In looking at the role played by the inspectorates[5] we focussed both on the impact of inspection and also on the wide range of other quality improvement measures that were introduced into the sector. For example, we looked at the role played by the Standards Unit (through its teaching materials and the training of Subject Learning Coaches), the formation of the Quality Improvement Agency for Lifelong Learning, quality improvement measures such as the LSC’s (2006) Framework for Excellence, and the promotion of ‘good’, ‘best’ and ‘excellent’ practice (see Coffield and Edward, forthcoming).

Initiatives – We examined some of the major initiatives that have been introduced into the sector, focussing on those most relevant to the three groups of learners we had chosen to study. The main initiatives that impinged on their study were: the Education Maintenance Allowance; Skills for Life, the national strategy for literacy, numeracy and ESOL; the Employer Training Pilots, which subsequently became Train to Gain and the Union Learning Fund which supported Union Learning Representatives and basic skills provision in the workplace.